of the POEA, as affirmed by this Court in its above-mentioned decision in G.R. No. 82252. By Decision of December 28, 1992,9 Branch 51 of the RTC Manila, holding that the Affidavit of Undertaking is clear, plain and explicit that it covers all the vessels of Navales (sic), rendered judgment in favor of SEAGULL. Said the trial court: If the defendants intention was indeed to limit its assumption of responsibility/liability to the vessel Arawa Bay only, it should have stated explicitly in the affidavit just as what others do in similar affidavit of undertaking of the same nature. Defendants contention that the affidavit was made by defendants employees and copied from POEAs copy can not be sustained. This is completely belied by the fact that Mr. Dalusong is not new in this line of business thus it could be said that he and his staff are well-versed in these matters including affidavits of such nature. It could be safely assumed that Mr. Dalusong who is familiar with the affidavit was aware of the contents of the document when he signed it. The issue of whether or not there was a mistake of fact on the part of the defendant, this Court could not see any valid consideration in favor of the defendant more so with its President, Mr. Romeo Dalusong who is a lawyer and who knows the importance of reading first the contents of a document before affixing his signature and the extent or limit of liability that they are assuming. Clearly therefore, the defendant was the one who caused the obscurity when they omitted the extent of liability, hence such obscurity must be construed against it.Otherwise, stated, if the document is clear and definite, its literal meaning shall prevail. Considering also the cross-examination on Mr. Dalusong, he said that he came to know the first time that Navales is represented in the Philippines by Seagull prior to the accreditation because POEA required him to execute an affidavit of undertaking. Then, later he also stated that he came to know the first time that Seagull is handling other vessels for Navales in the Philippines only when he received a demand letter from Atty. Prudencio Cruz. Ordinarily, no businessman would just enter into an agreement like this manning agreement with a principal without asking who are its previous or present manning agents, if there was any. Of course, he would inquire into its standing, credit and prestige. You just do not draft an agreement with no other inquiries. In the ordinary course of business where businessmen are regarded as shrewd, it would be unbelievable for the defendant not to have inquired or researched about any other manning agreement, more so about other vessels which could mean more business. At this point, it would be interesting to note that neither the plaintiff was notified of the new manning agreement by the defendant Navales.